Foo - Breast Cancer Deception

A very ingenious read.

http://www.newstarget.com/Report_Breast_Cancer_Deception_1.html

Meh. I work in detection and diagnostics not treatment. :)

Some may be whismical conjecture and/or correlation, but i do feel the medical industry is much more focused on treatment rather than prevention and/or cures because that's where the money is unfortunately. When you have a patient that takes your pills once a day to stay alive and well then you have a steady source of income. If you cure that person (even if it is an expensive cure), they won't need you afterwards.

As for me, if i get a non-resectable cancer, just lemme go. I don't wanna be chained to a daily cocktail of drugs which may reduce my quality of living.

Thing is, it's easier to prove it can treat than it is to prove it can prevent.

That's why the industry is how it is.

Honestly, the tone of that article sounded a lot like the stuff the homeopathic medicine crowd spews...lots of words with little to back it up. (I have some serious axes to grind with the homeopathic medicine crowd...water cannot retain properties of something that is not even present in it anymore...it's basic science...water is water, not wormwood or whatever you happened to put in it before diluting it beyond a 1/100000000 mixture)

If Vitamin D is so great at stopping cancer in it's tracks, then why did my grandmother, who practically bathes in milk (she goes through 3 gallons a week), have such a severe cancer as she had?

The reason there is no major report is these people are busy going after cures via science, and not going after verifying every household good under the sun. If they accidentally found out Vitamin D was useful, they would have made a Vitamin D supplement to be used during treatments.


Now, where pharmaseutical companies use federal grant (read: not a loan) funding for drug research, then go on to sell it for $10 a pill...that really pisses me off....that's just bull____ at it's finest.

Thing is, it's easier to prove it can treat than it is to prove it can prevent.

That's why the industry is how it is.

Honestly, the tone of that article sounded a lot like the stuff the homeopathic medicine crowd spews...lots of words with little to back it up. (I have some serious axes to grind with the homeopathic medicine crowd...water cannot retain properties of something that is not even present in it anymore...it's basic science...water is water, not wormwood or whatever you happened to put in it before diluting it beyond a 1/100000000 mixture)

If Vitamin D is so great at stopping cancer in it's tracks, then why did my grandmother, who practically bathes in milk (she goes through 3 gallons a week), have such a severe cancer as she had?

The reason there is no major report is these people are busy going after cures via science, and not going after verifying every household good under the sun. If they accidentally found out Vitamin D was useful, they would have made a Vitamin D supplement to be used during treatments.


Now, where pharmaseutical companies use federal grant (read: not a loan) funding for drug research, then go on to sell it for $10 a pill...that really pisses me off....that's just bull____ at it's finest.

What kind of cancer and what kind of milk?

standard whole milk, vitamin D.

She had lymphoma.

Had, she got medical treatment and it worked.

I love how people think it's actually as simple as "finding a cure." It's not like there's one magic drug for "cancer" that will stomp it out forever. If you think there is, it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of tumor biology.

I assure you that the first person/company to come up with a 100% preventive measure for any type of cancer will enjoy wealth beyond imagination. So much for the capitalism argument.

standard whole milk, vitamin D.

She had lymphoma.

Had, she got medical treatment and it worked.


"A large prospective study from Norway was
reported in the British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9,
March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals were followed for 11
and a half years). For most cancers there was no association
between the tumour and milk ingestion. However, in lymphoma,
there was a strong positive association. If one drank two
glasses or more daily (or the equivalent in dairy products),
the odds were 3.4 times greater than in persons drinking
less than one glass of developing a lymphoma."

Hm.

My mother died from ovarian cancer. Someone told me that there are over 700 different types of just ovarian cancer alone! The reason there is no cure for cancer is because there are so many different types and even when 2 people have the same type, chemo could work for one and not the other and no one really knows why at this point. It's incredibly difficult to treat cancer, much less prevent it (besides doing obvious things like not smoking, etc.) and there are some cancers that are more curable than others. The bottom line is, no one knows what causes cancer and until they figure that out, there will be no cure. I really doubt there is some sort of conspiracy within the medical or pharmaceutical industries to not find a cure. They have relatives who die from cancer too. Don't you think they'd like to save themselves and their families?

My mother died from ovarian cancer. Someone told me that there are over 700 different types of just ovarian cancer alone! The reason there is no cure for cancer is because there are so many different types and even when 2 people have the same type, chemo could work for one and not the other and no one really knows why at this point. It's incredibly difficult to treat cancer, much less prevent it (besides doing obvious things like not smoking, etc.) and there are some cancers that are more curable than others. The bottom line is, no one knows what causes cancer and until they figure that out, there will be no cure. I really doubt there is some sort of conspiracy within the medical or pharmaceutical industries to not find a cure. They have relatives who die from cancer too. Don't you think they'd like to save themselves and their families?

I whole-heartedly agree, but when I do believe there are some forms of conspiracy that are used.

A truly fundamental problem is that most people think "cancer" is one disease. It ain't. And I really get distressed to hear things like "mammography prevents breast cancer." It does nothing of the kind- it's a screening test, just like (shudder) the prostate specific antigen (PSA) or hemoccult (for blood in the stool). HUGE difference between screening and diagnosis, and an even bigger one between these and treatment, yet people get these mixed up all the time. We need to do a much, much better job of educating the public about this stuff- and it's not going to be through the "medical reporter" on your local TV stations. /rant

BTW, I'm a firm believer in complementary and alternative medicine- at least to the extent that it needs to be researched in as unbiased a way possible, without any pre-conceived notions about what it can and can't do that are informed (hamstrung, actually) by the allopathic tradition. One thing this article gets more or less right is that virtually every system of medicine deals with BC, as they do most other diseases. We should be looking at these other systems for guidance as we look at new ways to treat not just cancer but a host of diseases.

One other thing- I'm a cancer researcher, and I, along with most of my partners in crime (as the author would put it) have never been funded by pharma. All of our funding comes from NIH, generally the National Cancer Institute. Our tax dollars at work, folks. The author of this article is more than a little over the top in pointing fingers at big, bad pharma (not to say that one shouldn't point those fingers, for sure, but they aren't always the bad guys). Too much visceral emotion in this article and not enough dispassionate reasoning.

I whole-heartedly agree, but when I do believe there are some forms of conspiracy that are used.

You need to play Deus Ex if you haven't already. :) There's a big pharmaceutical (sp?) conspiracy weaved into the game.

Sounds like child's play.

I tried to read more of it and got too angry. The ignorance is just too much to bear.

The link is to an article "written" by a guy selling herbs that "prevent" cancer.

'nuff said.

It's really a shame, because there is a genuine conversation about cancer prevention - e.g., that there are a number of environmentally prevalent chemicals that probably cause many cancers - that needs to happen in the developed world.

Fresh Air from WHYY, October 4, 2007 · In The Secret History of the War on Cancer, environmental-health expert Devra Davis warns that we're ignoring dozens of cancer-causing chemicals, like asbestos, benzene, vinyl chloride, and dioxin.

She writes that, like the tobacco companies, the chemical industry has managed to obfuscate the carcinogenic dangers of chemical and other toxic waste.

Davis directs the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and teaches epidemiology in the university's public-health graduate program.

Her earlier book When Smoke Ran Like Water: Tales of Environmental Deception and the Battle Against Pollution was a finalist for the National Book Award.

Link here to interview:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14986010

The link is to an article "written" by a guy selling herbs that "prevent" cancer.

'nuff said.

It's really a shame, because there is a genuine conversation about cancer prevention - e.g., that there are a number of environmentally prevalent chemicals that probably cause many cancers - that needs to happen in the developed world.

Wrong wrong wrong.

Read his bio. before boasting ignorant remarks: http://www.newstarget.com/adamshealthstats.html

LOL the health ranger! EJ123 I like your thirst for knowledge but you tend to pick the worst sources. In general any piece written for the media, or for those who want to see the author without a shirt (e.g. bodybuilding sites), is total crap.

Try reading stuff that has passed at least a little peer review.. use pubmed and the like.

Oh and the link between cancer and vitamin d is HOT right now, certainly no conspiracy preventing that work.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17934201&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
This study supports the hypothesis that sunlight exposure reduces risk of advanced breast cancer among women with light skin pigmentation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17927502&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Our data support a protective effect of dietary vitamin D on premenopausal breast cancer risk independent of dietary calcium intake.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=7725953&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus
Reduction of breast cancer risk, and simultaneously osteoporosis, might be achieved by increasing dietary intake of calcium and vitamin D to RDA levels. This may be particularly applicable to females during puberty and adolescence.

Even more so with colon cancer...

Oh and the link between cancer and vitamin d is HOT right now, certainly no conspiracy preventing that work.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17934201&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
This study supports the hypothesis that sunlight exposure reduces risk of advanced breast cancer among women with light skin pigmentation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17927502&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Our data support a protective effect of dietary vitamin D on premenopausal breast cancer risk independent of dietary calcium intake.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=7725953&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus
Reduction of breast cancer risk, and simultaneously osteoporosis, might be achieved by increasing dietary intake of calcium and vitamin D to RDA levels. This may be particularly applicable to females during puberty and adolescence.

Even more so with colon cancers...



It's blatantly evident you have no clue of what the Newstarget website is, apart from quick assumptions.
Anyways, it's funny on the final link provided it states "Reduction of breast cancer risk, and simultaneously osteoporosis, might be achieved by increasing dietary intake of calcium and vitamin D to RDA levels."
Well of course..with the average American diet and the lack of substantial sunlight, deficiency is common. Here are plenty of articles from NT about it: http://www.newstarget.com/vitamin_D.html
I suppose you oppose the editor's warnings about HFCS, synthetic preservative, or even artifical sweetners among other things, as listed on the left hand side of the homepage?

"general any piece written for the media, or for those who want to see the author without a shirt (e.g. bodybuilding sites), is total crap."
Last I checked this website was written for the audience, and as you would have uncovered if you browsed around, the "health-ranger"'s pictures were to explain what can come about through holistic measures. (Perhaps read the whole article if not done so before stating erroneous claims)

I don't think the guy's a flake, any more than I think people like Dean Ornish is (interesting that he's not in the list of people he listens to, though!). That said, this guy's regimen is nothing short of heroic. My sense is that not even extremely motivated people would adhere to a regimen like this, and there's lots of empirical evidence to back me on this. Look at how many people drop out of simple programs like WeightWatchers, stop going to the gym, or just generally slide back into their evil ways. So is his program efficacious (that is, producing a desired effect)? Undoubtedly. Is it effective (meaning that in real life, will people adhere to it)? Highly, highly doubtful.

BTW, this guy is taking in a huge amount of phytoestrogens- I'd be interested to see what his hormone profile looks like.

EJ...I am in no way, shape, or form trying to flame you here. It's admirable the time that you spend researching something that I'm sure is something you are very much interested, and I hope you continue to do so. However, here is why I am worried about your stance on this subject:

1. www.newstarget.com is NOT an authoritative source on alternative/holistic medicine. The man's "street cred" is

"'I've found a way to unlock at least another 10%, maybe more. Today, thanks to the help of nutrition and high-density nutritional supplements, I've become a superlearning machine with a nervous system of such capacity that sometimes it amazes me."

Do you understand that the man can claim anything he wants to on his own personal website? Generally speaking, .com's are pretty much worthless as a source, and if you try to use one as a primary source in medical or scholarly literature, you will a) not be taken seriously and b) lose respect from your peers. When performing research on the internet, .edu and .gov sites have a little more authority, as there are professional reputations at stake. With that in mind, reading one fact from one source does not necessarily make it true, even if it IS from a peer-reviewed or educational resource.

2. This (http://www.newstarget.com/022039.html) is not an article. It is an un-cited quotation from a study not carried out by the website. If you try to pull this in a paper you submit to a professor or teacher, there will likely be severe academic consequences. It is called plagiarism when you do not give proper credit to the author of a study. He, or whomever wrote that piece, clearly did not carry out the study themselves.

I really hope you do not misinterpret my intentions here, EJ. You seem to be getting very defensive about this particular website, but part of becoming an authority on a topic means learning to read everything with a critical eye and mind. You are so young yet, you have so much time to keep researching and continue learning.

This cracks me up.


Wearing pink for breast cancer, or buying pink products, is a demonstration of your support for the enslavement of women by a highly-unethical industry that seeks to turn women's bodies into profit centers. Wearing pink shouts, "I support the ignorance of women! I support Big Pharma! I support male-dominated corporate control over the health of women's breasts!"
So here's a man telling us who's "enslaving" women and who isn't. :lol:

This cracks me up.


So here's a man telling us who's "enslaving" women and who isn't. :lol:

Yeah...I laughed, then I cried a little bit, and now I fear that I'll never be able to get my eyes unrolled from the back of my head.

This cracks me up.


So here's a man telling us who's "enslaving" women and who isn't. :lol:

Fine. We'll arm-wrestle and the loser needs to be slave-like for some pre-agreed period. :p

<where is my cartman voice?????>

Why post something like this. :mad: Even the controversy will piss people off, and none of that debate is good crap.

I've seen to many go from cancer………..and there’s NO fu%$ing debate about it. Sorry my heart is on my sleeve about now.

Peace ;)

Hey, I hear you, tasr. The kind of cancer I had is not responsive to any sort of chemo, radiation, or other medication. The only thing you can do with it is cut it out. I was fortunate to have caught it early, and I got out of it alive and even without a disfigured neck. But I also realize that for some people, it's still more of an academic subject than a personal one. I know they don't mean any harm or offense, even though it does hurt when we're close to the matter.

donna, I’m glad your still here with us and I glad you won. :)

I just get pretty emotional about cancer when it is not directed (in my opinion) the correct way. People suffer and loose their lives every minute of the day over cancer. Then there are others whom have NO business addressing it. It just saddens me greatly.

EJ...I am in no way, shape, or form trying to flame you here. It's admirable the time that you spend researching something that I'm sure is something you are very much interested, and I hope you continue to do so. However, here is why I am worried about your stance on this subject:

1. www.newstarget.com is NOT an authoritative source on alternative/holistic medicine. The man's "street cred" is


Do you understand that the man can claim anything he wants to on his own personal website? Generally speaking, .com's are pretty much worthless as a source, and if you try to use one as a primary source in medical or scholarly literature, you will a) not be taken seriously and b) lose respect from your peers. When performing research on the internet, .edu and .gov sites have a little more authority, as there are professional reputations at stake. With that in mind, reading one fact from one source does not necessarily make it true, even if it IS from a peer-reviewed or educational resource.

2. This (http://www.newstarget.com/022039.html) is not an article. It is an un-cited quotation from a study not carried out by the website. If you try to pull this in a paper you submit to a professor or teacher, there will likely be severe academic consequences. It is called plagiarism when you do not give proper credit to the author of a study. He, or whomever wrote that piece, clearly did not carry out the study themselves.

I really hope you do not misinterpret my intentions here, EJ. You seem to be getting very defensive about this particular website, but part of becoming an authority on a topic means learning to read everything with a critical eye and mind. You are so young yet, you have so much time to keep researching and continue learning.


Well said, Eboo.

+1 on being waaaaaay too many different types of cancers and waaaaaay too many different causes (known and unknown, preventable and unpreventable). Short of a miracle, there's no chance there'll be a wondercure for cancer, at least not in my lifetime. (i look through a microscope most of the day searching for cancer for a living, google "cytotechnologist" if you're interested)

EJ...I am in no way, shape, or form trying to flame you here. It's admirable the time that you spend researching something that I'm sure is something you are very much interested, and I hope you continue to do so. However, here is why I am worried about your stance on this subject:

1. www.newstarget.com is NOT an authoritative source on alternative/holistic medicine. The man's "street cred" is


Do you understand that the man can claim anything he wants to on his own personal website? Generally speaking, .com's are pretty much worthless as a source, and if you try to use one as a primary source in medical or scholarly literature, you will a) not be taken seriously and b) lose respect from your peers. When performing research on the internet, .edu and .gov sites have a little more authority, as there are professional reputations at stake. With that in mind, reading one fact from one source does not necessarily make it true, even if it IS from a peer-reviewed or educational resource.

2. This (http://www.newstarget.com/022039.html) is not an article. It is an un-cited quotation from a study not carried out by the website. If you try to pull this in a paper you submit to a professor or teacher, there will likely be severe academic consequences. It is called plagiarism when you do not give proper credit to the author of a study. He, or whomever wrote that piece, clearly did not carry out the study themselves.

I really hope you do not misinterpret my intentions here, EJ. You seem to be getting very defensive about this particular website, but part of becoming an authority on a topic means learning to read everything with a critical eye and mind. You are so young yet, you have so much time to keep researching and continue learning.

Heh, yes I am fully aware that this is not a legitimate resource. Though it does contains somewhat radical (if not mildly pertinacious opposition to anything allopathical) personal insights of the editor, I find the broad sense of what this man is trying to communicate very important, and this is of well-being through diet especially..and though you may say it lacks proper citation, in most all articles, there is a reference to which study conducted whichever experiment. I wish further studies were done on natural things opposed to synthetic drugs.

Isn't this dismaying: http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm

This article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm.

If you want to keep updated on issues like this click here to sign up for my free newsletter.

This information is a followup of the Institute of Medicine report which hit the papers in December of last year, but the data was hard to reference as it was not in peer-reviewed journal. Now it is published in JAMA which is the most widely circulated medical periodical in the world.

The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she desribes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.

ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:

12,000 -- unnecessary surgery
7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals
20,000 -- other errors in hospitals
80,000 -- infections in hospitals
106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs

I just get pretty emotional about cancer when it is not directed (in my opinion) the correct way. People suffer and loose their lives every minute of the day over cancer. Then there are others whom have NO business addressing it. It just saddens me greatly.
I understand, but we're all members of the human species and there is the potential for all of us to tangle with cancer in our lifetimes. It's natural for us to want to discuss it. I think it's just important to know the difference between science, speculation, and opinion - and to understand that this can be a very sensitive topic for people. I'll never forget the first time I encountered someone who decided to lecture me about all the quack things I could have done differently to avoid it, with a special emphasis on "negative emotions". It was a year after I was sick, and I was only 19 - it made me feel terrible. Now that I'm older and slightly wiser, I just laugh at people like that. It confuses them. ;)

donna, God bless you...........you’re very special, your insight is tremendous. :)

Hey, I hear you, tasr. The kind of cancer I had is not responsive to any sort of chemo, radiation, or other medication. The only thing you can do with it is cut it out. I was fortunate to have caught it early, and I got out of it alive and even without a disfigured neck.Donna, I don't think I've ever :beered: you for this, so I'll take this opportunity to do so, coming from someone for whom cancer is a personal subject:

:beer:

Oh, okay, one more.

:beer:

Thank you. :) :o

I'm going to beer your ass too. Well, maybe not directly ON your ass (unless you really wanted me to) :beer:

EJ, I'm not going to say too much more about this subject, because, honestly, the subject and the sheer ignorance of that man and the "articles" you are linking to are beginning to make me pretty emotional. I try to not argue when I'm mad.

OK...


I find the broad sense of what this man is trying to communicate very important, and this is of well-being through diet especially..and though you may say it lacks proper citation, in most all articles, there is a reference to which study conducted whichever experiment. I wish further studies were done on natural things opposed to synthetic drugs.

Broad sense, yes. Good food = good; bad food = bad; exercise = healthy; sitting on your ass = not healthy. That is as far as I'm willing to agree with this dude. I DO not agree that doctors are quacks, that wearing pink somehow means I'm selling out, and that eating a **** ton of whole grains is going to cure cancer. Why? Because the vast majority of the current medical literature disputes that.


This article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm.

If you want to keep updated on issues like this click here to sign up for my free newsletter.

This information is a followup of the Institute of Medicine report which hit the papers in December of last year, but the data was hard to reference as it was not in peer-reviewed journal. Now it is published in JAMA which is the most widely circulated medical periodical in the world.

The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she desribes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.

ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:

12,000 -- unnecessary surgery
7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals
20,000 -- other errors in hospitals
80,000 -- infections in hospitals
106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs

EJ, are you summarizing the article for us here, or did you pull this from that link you posted? It's unclear to me, the free newsletter bit confused me. In any event, what article from JAMA? Volume, issue, year, pages? What is the title of the article? It is impossible for me to take those perfectly rounded numbers seriously until I understand how they arrived at them, and what their methods for collecting the data was.

If you haven't tried searching in Pubmed yet (it's a free version of Medline, it's put out the the National Library of Medicine), you should consider doing so. When I get to work today, I will do a couple searches for you on holistic medicine, and I'll PM you my search strategies and results.

As one last personal note: I think you will find it a daunting task to try and find someone on these boards who has not been touched by cancer in some way, shape, or form. With that said, and speaking as one of those affected, it does piss me off when I read something like "cure your cancer with good diet and exercise." I do not feel like I'm alone on this opinion, others have already voiced in this thread. Just take care when you're posting on a sensitive topic like this, and understand why emotions tend to run so high.

By the by, I think cowboy hats are great. I used to wear a bid ol' leather fedora to school, people always thought it was a cowboy hat. WTF??